Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[BluesMistress]

If my boss is Jehovah's Witness, will the insurance he provides have to cover blood transfusions? If my boss is Southern Baptist and my child needs stem cell therapy, will the insurance he provides be required to cover it?

The Conservatives are crowing about this Hobby Lobby decision. Well, crowing right up until they are forced to realize that the religious knife cuts deeper than contraceptives.

Before this ruling there are people with cancer that purchased obamacare that cannot find a dr to get needed treatment. There are also obamacare policies that are now refusing to cover ms medications because of their cost. Not being able to get abortion drugs is not such a BIG deal to many with much bigger problems.
Where is your outrage when it comes to what is already being done to those that are in need of cancer or ms treatment??
I smell Faux outrage using a what if instead of what already is


No, You Can't Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare - Forbes
Alarming news: TX largest cancer treatment centers will not accept ACA patients

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

Not a single one of the drugs HL is not covering is life saving or disease controlling drug so your argument is worthless beyond words....

 

[Plasmaball]

ill answer, because sometimes that's all they can get at the moment.

Someone on facebook said this was only , but i disagree, people will still try because now they have a foothold to go off of.

Can of worms has been opened, and i for one can't wait for a Muslim centric company to go to court over things like this. So i can watch these same people applauding this loose their heads because of sharia law.

It would appear that there is now precedent for doing so; if the court has now recongnized that companies can have a religion.

Closely held companies, i.e. non public ones.

so what

 

[Erand7899]

Sharia Law is based on religious beliefs and doctrines. If the Court has held that religious 'laws' can be exempted from having to adhere to other protected rights in the Constitution,

then Sharia law becomes superior to the Constitution.

Where is the "protected right" of free contraception and morning after pills being provided by corporations in the US Constitution?

The protected right is equal treatment under the law.

Since when has a left wing Democrat ever worried about equal treatment under the law? Only when your left wing agenda gets bitten in the ass.

 

[Plasmaball]

i like the old hobby lobby where they covered BC via their health insurance anyways and didnt have an issue till Obama was in office.

Those were they days...let me tell ya.

 

[depotoo]

The IRS defines a closely held corporation as one that has more than 50 percent of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by five or fewer individuals and is not a personal service corporation.

i wonder how they define 'closely held' corporations...??

What did the court rule?

The court rejected the government’s claim that neither the owners nor the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. “Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Alito wrote.

Alito: “As applied to closely held corporations the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA." Alito wrote that “RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for profit corporations like Conestoga and Hobby Lobby” and the “The HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion."



What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?

“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.





What did Ginsburg's dissent say?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.

In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :”Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of “Me, too” questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices.”

...

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court - ABC News

 

[Ibentoken]

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

So, let me get this straight. Religious business owners can't "enforce their dogma" on their employees, but the government can force it's own on them? Why?

And just a burning question, how does not having an abortion kill the woman if she is fully capable of giving birth to the child? This only proves liberals want abortive rights for those women who would like to be afforded the convenience, not the necessity of having an abortion.

An employer has no place, let alone 'right' imposing his [articular religious dogma on employees. You sign on for a paycheck in exchange for labor or services, not religious indoctrination. And if that religious dogma says one cannot have particular lifesaving medical treatment, let the employer die from ignorance. Don't take out the innocent employees there just to do a job.

I agree. Did you know Hobby Lobby is going to take the employee's children to church and baptize them? Yep. The kids also have to attend 2 months of Jesus Boot Camp during summer vacation. Yep.

 

[Google]

It is not about birth control. This is what drives me crazy about this issue. My wife works for Hobby Lobby. They provide contraception, the "pill", what they do not want to cover is the morning after pill or abortion causing drugs.

The left, as the so often are, is being completely disingenuous in their arguments. They say "contraception", but never tell everyone the entire truth.

 

[Nosmo King]

Before this ruling there are people with cancer that purchased obamacare that cannot find a dr to get needed treatment. There are also obamacare policies that are now refusing to cover ms medications because of their cost. Not being able to get abortion drugs is not such a BIG deal to many with much bigger problems.
Where is your outrage when it comes to what is already being done to those that are in need of cancer or ms treatment??
I smell Faux outrage using a what if instead of what already is


No, You Can't Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare - Forbes
Alarming news: TX largest cancer treatment centers will not accept ACA patients

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

Not a single one of the drugs HL is not covering is life saving or disease controlling drug so your argument is worthless beyond words....

In this particular case. But when a Jehovah Witness employer refuses to provide health coverage for blood transfusions because that procedure is against his religion, what will you say? When a Southern Baptist employer refuses to provide health coverage that covers stem cell therapy because that procedure runs counter to his 'religious' belief, where will you turn?

This decision puts the religious rights of employers above the religious rights of employees. Corporate Sharia Law is upheld by SCOTUS.

And Conservatives think this is a victory for freedom? How?

 

[Meister]

Have to see what the scope of the ruling is

On the surface, it can go well beyond birth control

If my boss is Jehovah's Witness, will the insurance he provides have to cover blood transfusions? If my boss is Southern Baptist and my child needs stem cell therapy, will the insurance he provides be required to cover it?

The Conservatives are crowing about this Hobby Lobby decision. Well, crowing right up until they are forced to realize that the religious knife cuts deeper than contraceptives.

If you had read the ruling you wouldn't have made such a off base knee jerk response.
The ruling was a narrow ruling that clipped it to just what Hobby Lobby was asking for.
It won't go beyond the scope of woman's contraception pill, and HL is not changing the 20 brands of woman's contraception pill, just the morning after pill.

 

[Redfish]

The extremes like Sallow and bripat here are laughable, period.

Alito's ruling preserves the religious liberties of a family or narrowly defined group with a track record of religiosity and clearly identified spiritual beliefs and who jointly own the business.

The ruling does not cover giant or tiny businesses that cannot fit that pattern.

In the make up of this court, Roberts demonstrates that he intends to preserve congressional legislation wherever possible while protecting religious or business interests.

Like I pointed out before, narrow decisions seldom remain narrow.

First? Because it's unfair. Laws should apply to everyone. And Corporations will demand this "right".

Second? Because people are constantly in the business of pushing the envelope.

Aw boo fricken hoo. its unfair, it hurts you widdle feewings. Tough shit.

Want to talk about unfair? obamacare is unfair, unions are unfair, taxes are unfair, life is unfair.

No where is it written that everything has to be FAIR. You libs need to wake the fuck up and deal with life as it is. What you make of yourself is up to you, not the fricken government.

 

[Meister]

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

Not a single one of the drugs HL is not covering is life saving or disease controlling drug so your argument is worthless beyond words....

In this particular case. But when a Jehovah Witness employer refuses to provide health coverage for blood transfusions because that procedure is against his religion, what will you say? When a Southern Baptist employer refuses to provide health coverage that covers stem cell therapy because that procedure runs counter to his 'religious' belief, where will you turn?

This decision puts the religious rights of employers above the religious rights of employees. Corporate Sharia Law is upheld by SCOTUS.

And Conservatives think this is a victory for freedom? How?

the ruling didn't even touch that, NK

 

[Meister]

Monday's opinion was written narrowly so as only to apply to the contraception mandate, not to religious employers who object to other medical services, like blood transfusions or vaccines.
Supreme Court Rules In Hobby Lobby Case, Dealing Blow To Birth Control Coverage

 

[Luissa]

Right... just like the left is so tolerant of heterosexuals and their opinion that homosexuality is disgusting and perverted... just like that.

You have the right to your opinion, we have the right to call you a bigot. See how that works? Your bigoted views however should not decide the rights have another. See how that works?

No, I see you acting like a dumbass.



If ever there was a better example of IRONY on this board, you just laid it out, Luie. What a moron.



You ARE what you profess to HATE.



Move along... you really are too stupid to speak.

So you have the right to your opinion? But I don't have the right to my opinion?
And I don't hate you, I feel sorry for you. You have no clue how stupid and bigoted you are.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The safest bet for welfare dependent liberals is to become a federal civil servant. Make sure they get the full govt tit.... Right, they already are

 

[Valerie]

i like the old hobby lobby where they covered BC via their health insurance anyways and didnt have an issue till Obama was in office.

Those were they days...let me tell ya.

is it really about the man obama, or was it really their objection to the new legislation which mandated it? (a rhetorical question)

What did Alito say about freedom of religion?

Alito: “The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

Does the law apply to corporations?

Alito: “Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies.”

i just wonder how they define 'closely held' corporations as i share the slippery slope concerns expressed by the dissenting justices...

In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :”Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of “Me, too” questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices.”


Ginsburg wrote , “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure”

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court - ABC News

 

[007]

i like the old hobby lobby where they covered BC via their health insurance anyways and didnt have an issue till Obama was in office.

Those were they days...let me tell ya.

Prove it...

... link?

 

[Ibentoken]

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

Not a single one of the drugs HL is not covering is life saving or disease controlling drug so your argument is worthless beyond words....

In this particular case. But when a Jehovah Witness employer refuses to provide health coverage for blood transfusions because that procedure is against his religion, what will you say? When a Southern Baptist employer refuses to provide health coverage that covers stem cell therapy because that procedure runs counter to his 'religious' belief, where will you turn?

This decision puts the religious rights of employers above the religious rights of employees. Corporate Sharia Law is upheld by SCOTUS.

And Conservatives think this is a victory for freedom? How?

Funny stuff.

 

[Google]

The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

My wife works for Hobby Lobby and receives contraception under the insurance they provide. They did not want to provide ABORTION causing drugs. The so-called morning after pill.

The left is obsessed with abortion. It is the holy sacrament.

 

[Peach]

It is.

It has opened the door to religious discrimination.

This was an extremely stupid ruling.

It's nonsense.

I want you to do me a favor. Take this out of the insurance argument.

Let me ask you this: Lets say that someday a company is founded by a Muslim that becomes, lets say, a nationwide chain of car dealerships. As we know, Muslims have a big problem being subordinate to a woman.

Could a company that is completely privately held by a Muslim family, find religious footing to not promote women?

Now?

Of course it could.

This is why this decision is so shockingly bad.

66 or 68 pages, I didn't have time to read it all; Kennedy concurred, says the ruling is narrow, Ginsberg wrote the dissent, says it is broad, etc. Anybody who desires can read it all. Link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12a644_k53l.pdf

 

[TemplarKormac]

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

So, let me get this straight. Religious business owners can't "enforce their dogma" on their employees, but the government can force it's own on them? Why?

And just a burning question, how does not having an abortion kill the woman if she is fully capable of giving birth to the child? This only proves liberals want abortive rights for those women who would like to be afforded the convenience, not the necessity of having an abortion.

An employer has no place, let alone 'right' imposing his [articular religious dogma on employees. You sign on for a paycheck in exchange for labor or services, not religious indoctrination. And if that religious dogma says one cannot have particular lifesaving medical treatment, let the employer die from ignorance. Don't take out the innocent employees there just to do a job.

And until the law changes, a corporate entity has the same, full constitutional rights as an individual. Meaning in every facet of law, you were and are wrong.

Moreovoer, 'let the employer die from ignorance'? Where does the Bible say, "thou shalt provide abortion coverage for your employees"? And how is Hobby Lobby 'indoctrinating' their employees? All of them have the right to give their two weeks and go work somewhere else. Seriously.

The owners of that business started that business expecting their constitutional rights be respected. There is no constitutional right to free abortions at the expense of your employer.